Between:

Sri Lakshmi Marketing

Represented by its Partner K.Surendra Reddy,

D.No.46-86-57,

Budhawarpet,

Kurnool – 518 001.                                      …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

1. The Branch Manager,

   United India Insurance Company Limited,

   H.No.40/304, Mourya Inn Complex,

   Bhagaya Nagar,

   Kurnool – 518 001.

2. Andhra Bank,

   Represented by its Branch Manager,

   H.No.40/29,  Park Road,

   Opp. Gandhi Nagar,

   Kurnool – 518 001.                                                                ...Opposite ParTies

.

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.Kusupati Muralidhar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri.G.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)            

                                                 C.C. No.26 

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-

(a)          To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards stock damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of incident to i.e., 02-10-2009 till the date of realization;

(b)          To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony;

(c)           To pay the cost of the complaint;

And

(d)          To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is running the business in the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Marketing D.No.46-86-57, Bhudhawar Pet, Kurnool.   The complainant is the account holder of opposite party No.2.  He availed loan from opposite party No.2 and hypothecated his stock with opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.2 insured the same with opposite party No.1 and remitted the premium of Rs.2,234/- in favour of opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.1 issued the policy bearing No.551100/48/09/34/00000191 in favour of the complainant.  It was valid from 17-08-2009 to 16-08-2010.  On 02-10-2009 the complainant shop submerged in flood water and entire stock was damaged.  The complainant informed the same to opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor to assess the loss and the said surveyor assessed the loss and filed his report.  The complainant made a claim to opposite parties along with relevant documents.  On 28-04-2010 opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim as no claim on the ground that the insured has covered his policy stocks of furniture like wooden and steel where as at the time of floods loss as per survey report the insured was having stocks of coir mattresses alone.  The ops repudiated the claim without any reasonable cause.  Due to the negligent act of both the parties the complainant suffered mental agony.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that opposite party No.2 sanctioned loan to the complainant and hypothecated stocks with it.  Opposite party No.2 insured the stocks of furniture like wooden and steel only with opposite party No.1.  It is admitted that on 02-10-2009 there were floods in Kurnool city and the complainant shop was submerged in flood water.  Opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor and the surveyor inspected the shop and submitted his report.  It was informed by the surveyor in his report that loss and damage to beds, coir beds, pillows, mattresses of different sizes and shapes was not covered under the said policy.  Opposite party No.1 rightly repudiated the claim.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that the complainant is the account holder of opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 is no way concerned for settlement of insurance claim.  It is the sole responsibility of opposite party No.1.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.2. 

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

                     i.        Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

                    ii.        Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

                  iii.        To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:-  It is admitted that the shop of the complainant situated near G.G. Hospital, Budhawar Pet, Kurnool.  It is also admitted that the complainant obtained loan from opposite party No.2 bank.  The insurance company issued the policy bearing No.051100/48/04/00099 Ex.B2 = Ex.A1 in favour of the complainant.  The complainant in his affidavit stated that due to flood water on 02-10-2009, the shop of the complainant was inundated and completely damaged.  The opposite parties also admitted that on 02-10-2009 due to the flood water the shop of the complainant was submerged in flood water.  The complainant filled certificate issued by Thasildar, Kurnool dated 27-10-2009 (Ex.A5) where in it was certified that the shop of the complainant was badly affected due to flood water on 02-10-2009.  Admittedly a surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1.  The said surveyor inspected the shop and submitted his report which is marked as Ex.B3.  In Ex.B3 the surveyor clearly stated that due to flood water inundated entire G.G. Hospital area and it was raised about 4 to 5 feets from Floor in the insured shop.  As seen from Ex.B3 and Ex.A5 it is clear that the shop of the complainant affected and damaged due to flood water. 

8.     It is the case of the complainant that he obtained loan from opposite party No.2 and hypothecated the stock with it.  Opposite party No.2 insured the same with opposite party No.1.  The insured shop was inundated in flood water resulting heavy damage to furniture.  The complainant informed the same to opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor to assess the loss.  The surveyor assessed the loss and filed his report (Ex.B3).  The complainant made claim to opposite parties.  opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim as no claim under Ex.A6 dated 28-04-2010 on the ground that the policy has covered stock of furniture like wooden and steel where as at the time of floods the insured was having stock of coir mattresses alone.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the complainant believed that the furniture includes coir mattresses also. The entire stock register was handed over to the bank.  The bank (opposite party No.2) authority not supplied the copy of policy to the complainant.  The complainant has no knowledge about the contents of the policy.  The ambiguity to be interpreted for the benefit of insured.  In support his contention he relied on decision reported in II (2004) CPJ 455 Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Vs - S.K. Trading Company & Others.  In the above cited case the firm deals in retail business of loose cotton and loose cotton waste.  The stock of loose cotton and loose cotton waste was damage due to fire.  The claim was repudiated on the ground that the insurance covered in regard to the damage by fire to loose cotton waste and cloth and sports and not to loose cotton.  In the event of ambiguity in the policy the same has to be interpreted in favour of the insured and stock of loose cotton and it was held that the stock of loose cotton was also covered under the policy of insurance.  But in present case in Ex.B2 = Ex.A1 it is clearly mentioned that it covers stocks of furniture like wooden and steel so the facts of the above cited case are not applicable to present case. 

9.     The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 contended that the surveyor inspected the insured the shop and gave the report Ex.B3. In the report it is clearly stated that the loss and damage was only to beds, coir beds, mattresses of different sizes and shapes.  The loss is not covered under the policy.  The proposal form Ex.B1 clearly covers only stocks of furniture like wooden and steel.  The opposite party No.1 issued the policy in the year 2004 and was renewed by the complainant every year. The complainant never objected to the subject covered by the policy.   The opposite party No.1 rightly repudiated the claim under Ex.A6 dated 28-04-2010.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.    

10.    The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 contended that opposite party No.2 bank provides its customers services with utmost care and concerned.  The opposite party No.2 has no role to take decision in settlement of insurance claim.  It is the sole responsibility of opposite party No.1.  As per Ex.B1 proposal form Ex.B2=Ex.A1 policy copy Ex.B3 survey report, it is clear that the above policy covered stocks on furniture like wooden and steel only, but the loss and damages cause to coir beds and mattresses is not covered under the said policy.  The complainant filed Ex.A1 policy copy. He never objected on the subject of description items by the policy.  Taking into consideration entire material on record we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.  The opposite parties are not held liable to pay any compensation under the policy. 

11.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30^th day of November, 2012.

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                 Sd/-   

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

               APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill            For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of Shopkeeper’s Insurance Policy bearing

No.051100/48/09/34/00000191.

Ex.A2                Photo copy of Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Pass Book of

                Complainant issued by Andhra Bank, Kurnool.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of Sanction Letter dated 16-06-2007.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Borrowers statement dated 25-09-2009.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Certificate issued by Thasildar, Kurnool

dated 27-10-2009.

Ex.A6                Photo copy of Letter of opposite party No.1 to complainant

                dated 28-04-2010.

Ex.A7                Letter of opposite party No.1 to complainant

dated 05-10-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Shopkeeper’s Insurance Proposal Form-Cum-Schedule.

Ex.B2                Policy bearing No.051100/48/04/00099.

Ex.B3                Office copy of Survey Report dated 25-03-2010.

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-        

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987// 

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :